15 months and counting: Another feckless day at the U.N. while Syrians die

Kofi Annan today came as closely as he has ever come to declaring his famous six-point plan for peace in Syria dead. "I must be frank and confirm that the plan is not being implemented," he said dryly in an address to the U.N. General Assembly.

Indeed, Annan is coming to acknowledge what had long ago become clear to his diplomatic predecessors (and everyone else, for that matter), including Arab League Secretary General Nabil Elaraby and U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon: Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad is not willing to yield to diplomatic pressure to agree to a political transition that will take him out of his job.

Annan’s response is to explore yet another diplomatic plan that few believe stands much of a chance of ending the violence. The U.N. Security Council, meanwhile, has largely debated incremental steps — sending more U.N. monitors to Syria, giving them weapons to defend themselves, applying some form of international sanctions — to move the peace plan forward.

The caution reflects widespread pessimism at the U.N. over the wisdom of military intervention in Syria, and the unwillingness of key outside powers, principally the United States, to commit to the use of force in Syria.

But it also reflects the fecklessness of the diplomatic strategy at the United Nations — which has failed to stem a conflict that has played out over more than 15 months, and which lacks a credible threat of force that many analysts believe would be required to alter Assad’s calculation about his survivability.

"Diplomacy, more often than we’d wish, is a matter of limited, available alternatives," Nader Mousavizadeh, a former Annan aide, wrote in an opinion piece for Reuters. "For Syria, there is no deus ex machina, no intervention force waiting to provide a clean removal of the regime in Damascus with the simplicity or speed than anyone would like."

In a series of newspaper leaks, Annan’s camp floated a proposal to set up yet another negotiating bloc — or contact group — that would bring together representatives of Britain, China, France, Iran, Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the United States in support of political transition.

According to the plan — which is loosely modeled on a U.S.-backed plan for a political transition in Yemen– these regional and powers would draw up a road map leading to Assad’s departure, including presidential and parliamentary elections.

The proposal has already generated controversy, with American diplomats questioning the wisdom of inviting Iran to sit at the peace table.

"I think Iran is part of the problem in Syria," said Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, claiming Tehran has been "actively engaged in supporting the government" in Syria. "We think Iran has not demonstrated to date a readiness to contribute constructively to a peaceful political solution."

The success of the plan — like previous ones — rests on the willingness of Russia to apply pressure on Assad to step down, and on Assad to accept the international calls for his departure. So far, those goals have proven elusive, and many analysts suspect that the Syrian leader believes that he holds the upper hand. Meanwhile, the Obama administration has dispatched a senior official to Moscow to persuade the government to support Assad’s removal, saying it offers the only hope of stabilizing the country and preserving Russian interests.

Whether there’s any chance at convincing Russia to switch sides is an open question. "It is unclear why Russia has an incentive to get serious with Assad," said Bruce Jones, the director of New York University’s Center for International Cooperation. Jones has proposed that the international community pursues a parallel track that "raises the prospect of some sort of third-party military intervention until such time Russia believes we’re serious about third-party intervention."

In Washington, foreign policy hawks, including Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT), ridiculed the diplomatic strategy. "When regimes are willing to commit any atrocity to stay in power, diplomacy cannot succeed until the military balance of power changes on the ground."

Even Ban himself has acknowledged the seeming impotence of the international community. "Today’s report of yet another massacre in al-Qubeir underscored the horrifying reality on the ground," Ban told reporters following a Security Council debate on Syria. "How many more times do we have to condemn them and how many more ways must we say we are outraged? 

For its part, Russia, a long standing ally and principal arms supplier of the Syrian regime, has insisted that it is not committed to keeping Assad in power."We are not wedded to Assad," Russia’s U.N. envoy Vitaly Chirkin told the Security Council behind closed doors today, according to a council diplomat. "We have had that position from the start. If he had to go, as a result of a political process, we wouldn’t be so upset."

Andrew Tabler, an expert on Syria at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said the while the council has focused on persuading Assad to participate in a political talks it has devoted too little attention to what it would take to get the opposition to talk. That, he said, would be unlikely without a clear signal it will lead to Assad’s departure.

"Unless the end goal clears there is no sense in getting into another diplomatic process now," Tabler said. "It has to be clear to all different parties that Assad has to go."

If that doesn’t happen, Annan may be the one who goes. His commitment to the pressing his diplomatic plan, he told the council behind closed doors, is "no open-ended."

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch